This is a fascinating and worthy subject; there are some links in your reasoning that I would like a more rigorous explanation of.
jump over low memetic fitness regions of the memetic fitness landscape and discover higher fitness technologies on the other side rather than leveling off at the ‘golden age’ level of Minoan Crete [or] the Abbasid and other advanced Caliphates
So, two questions here:
What does it mean to ‘level off’ at a golden age rather than leap over a valley? I feel like there must be more than two dimensions here, and I’m having trouble visualizing your mixed metaphor.
What are the relevant feature(s) that Minoan Crete holds in common with the Abbasid Caliphate? Do these two cultures really belong to a discrete area of culture-space? Why?
as civilizations reach a higher level of development, more effort is available for indoctrination
Sorry, what? Who is indoctrinating whom? With which resources? Why do we think these resources are disproportionately available in more-developed civilizations? Which avenues of development promote this kind of indoctrination? Might other avenues of development counteract the indoctrination? Do we have any reason to expect those other avenues to develop more slowly or less effectively?
Ultimately, the civilization systematically destroys the ability of its unreasonable men to compete for the slots in the society where rationality is required
Systematically? Really? Are there people affirmatively trying to wreak this sort of destruction, or does civilization just naturally destroy the political competitiveness of unreasonable people at such a uniform, high level as to have systematic effect?
Also, which slots in society require disproportionate amounts of rationality? Obviously, some jobs are more important than others, and some jobs carry so little autonomy that rationality is difficult to exploit, but wouldn’t rationality be more or less equally useful as a fraction of the usefulness of the job in, e.g., real estate sales, a pediatrician’s office, the US Senate, a police captain’s desk, and the purchasing division of a global hotel chain?
There seems to be a general stage where civilizations have widespread trade networks, highly varied luxury goods, sometimes running water and/or printing, complex mechanical toys, large cities etc. The more ancient civilizations at this rough stage always have less advanced metal-working and animal&plant domestication than the later ones, as metal and genes advance relatively continuously.
More advanced civilizations have more wealth per-capita, though not more median wealth. Much of that excess wealth is used for more religion, which includes education. Cosmopolitanism might push towards more independence of thought, but not likely towards fewer hours of training.
My post was a hypotheses as to how civilization tends to destroy the competitiveness of a certain type of person, basically by pushing them to eschew near-mode thought through the explicit endorsement of far-mode and denouncement of near mode (http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/06/school-is-far.html#comment-448720) . Rationality tends to be negatively useful in sales. It’s critical in policy analysis jobs, royal advisers and the like. Otherwise, agreed.
This is a fascinating and worthy subject; there are some links in your reasoning that I would like a more rigorous explanation of.
So, two questions here:
What does it mean to ‘level off’ at a golden age rather than leap over a valley? I feel like there must be more than two dimensions here, and I’m having trouble visualizing your mixed metaphor.
What are the relevant feature(s) that Minoan Crete holds in common with the Abbasid Caliphate? Do these two cultures really belong to a discrete area of culture-space? Why?
Sorry, what? Who is indoctrinating whom? With which resources? Why do we think these resources are disproportionately available in more-developed civilizations? Which avenues of development promote this kind of indoctrination? Might other avenues of development counteract the indoctrination? Do we have any reason to expect those other avenues to develop more slowly or less effectively?
Systematically? Really? Are there people affirmatively trying to wreak this sort of destruction, or does civilization just naturally destroy the political competitiveness of unreasonable people at such a uniform, high level as to have systematic effect?
Also, which slots in society require disproportionate amounts of rationality? Obviously, some jobs are more important than others, and some jobs carry so little autonomy that rationality is difficult to exploit, but wouldn’t rationality be more or less equally useful as a fraction of the usefulness of the job in, e.g., real estate sales, a pediatrician’s office, the US Senate, a police captain’s desk, and the purchasing division of a global hotel chain?
There seems to be a general stage where civilizations have widespread trade networks, highly varied luxury goods, sometimes running water and/or printing, complex mechanical toys, large cities etc. The more ancient civilizations at this rough stage always have less advanced metal-working and animal&plant domestication than the later ones, as metal and genes advance relatively continuously.
More advanced civilizations have more wealth per-capita, though not more median wealth. Much of that excess wealth is used for more religion, which includes education. Cosmopolitanism might push towards more independence of thought, but not likely towards fewer hours of training.
My post was a hypotheses as to how civilization tends to destroy the competitiveness of a certain type of person, basically by pushing them to eschew near-mode thought through the explicit endorsement of far-mode and denouncement of near mode (http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/06/school-is-far.html#comment-448720) . Rationality tends to be negatively useful in sales. It’s critical in policy analysis jobs, royal advisers and the like. Otherwise, agreed.